Make American Hate Again - By the numbers.

[Edge-]

Considering Trump cut the part of the government that watches the domestic terrorists, that are primarily white, I wouldn't hold my breath.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...-wing-violence

That's because according to Republicans, or at least a Republican Congresswoman from New York, Democrats are the ones responsible for most mass shootings.

This allegation was of course not backed up by any evidence to support it.

[Mormolyce]

"Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley". Here is their site: http://www.theconservativeforum.com/
"ACT for America". Here is their site: http://www.actforamerica.org/aboutact
"Oregonians for Immigration Reform" Here is their site: http://www.oregonir.org/

Of these, the SPLC only has a specific page for ACT:

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...up/act-america

Too long to post an excerpt here. A lot of it is direct quotes from them. These guys are without question a hate group, anyone who looks at that record and thinks otherwise is frankly an apologist.

The others are likely too small to warrant a dedicated article.

And so on. For every organization like this that I find on the map, you can find an actual hate group, and that's the issue, because the SPLC doesn't distinguish between Nazis and people who just want border security, for example. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an "anti-Muslim extremist" (this is the SPLC's write up on her and others: https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/j...lim-extremists ), then what is David Duke? The SPLC deliberately obfuscates the truth with blanket labeling.

And if you read the direct quotes from Ayaan Hirsi Ali in your own link, the term "anti-Muslim extremist" is entirely accurate. What, should she get an exemption because she's Somalian?

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe you can provide a better source for a list of all the known hate groups in the nations. We have asked of this from the other poster who complained about the source, but he did not provide anything.

I'm sure that if there was one, they'd have to disparage it even harder.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/...k-post-article



Hm, an explanation of methodology to address criticism? Seems like something a reasonable organization might do.

Hardly.
"It didn't fit our biased definitions." Was all I got out of that.

The SPLC is not a neutral source. How many times must this be pointed out?

There is no such thing as a neutral source; everyone has their own swing, no matter how minuscule. The best thing you can do is to keep an open mind, but not so open as to let your brain fall out.

These guys are without question a hate group, anyone who looks at that record and thinks otherwise is frankly an apologist.

Cute.

And if you read the direct quotes from Ayaan Hirsi Ali in your own link, the term "anti-Muslim extremist" is entirely accurate. What, should she get an exemption because she's Somalian?

Read their little article on Hirsi Ali. If her rhetoric is "remarkably toxic", then all the SPLC is proving is that there's nothing wrong with being "remarkably toxic".

Let me just set this straight: Just as the only true measure of a man is what he does with power, so too does that apply to ideologies.
So how dare an ex-Muslim speak out against the reality of what her former religion does when it is in power!

[Elegiac]

Hardly.
"It didn't fit our biased definitions." Was all I got out of that.

Sounds like a "you" problem.

[Machismo]

Hardly.
"It didn't fit our biased definitions." Was all I got out of that.




There is no such thing as a neutral source; everyone has their own swing, no matter how minuscule. The best thing you can do is to keep an open mind, but not so open as to let your brain fall out.

Cute.

Read their little article on Hirsi Ali. If her rhetoric is "remarkably toxic", then all the SPLC is proving is that there's nothing wrong with being "remarkably toxic".

Let me just set this straight: Just as the only true measure of a man is what he does with power, so too does that apply to ideologies.
So how dare an ex-Muslim speak out against the reality of what her former religion does when it is in power!

So, it's clear that you don't like the source that was provided, but you never managed to provide your own source to actually refute anything. A source was requested, yet you did not deliver. It's a shame you were not able to get a source from you, maybe next time, slugger.

[Mormolyce]

Read their little article on Hirsi Ali. If her rhetoric is "remarkably toxic", then all the SPLC is proving is that there's nothing wrong with being "remarkably toxic".

Let me just set this straight: Just as the only true measure of a man is what he does with power, so too does that apply to ideologies.
So how dare an ex-Muslim speak out against the reality of what her former religion does when it is in power!

They called her an anti-Muslim extremist.

In her 2007 Reason interview, she said, “There comes a moment when you crush your enemy” militarily, and added, “There is no moderate Islam. … [T]here’s really only one Islam, defined as submission to the will of God. There’s nothing moderate about it.” And she told her interviewer that it wasn’t only “radical Islam” that needed to be defeated, saying, “No. Islam, period. Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.” She also told the journal that she had sought to “get rid of” all Islamic schools in the Netherlands while living there.

...

Appearing on the March 23, 2015, edition of “The Daily Show,” she said, “If you look at 70% of the violence in the world today, Muslims are responsible.” Experts said the claim appeared to be bogus, and she later amended it to say 70% of fatalities “were in wars involving Muslims,” including civil wars.

100% justified.

[Everwake]

And if you read the direct quotes from Ayaan Hirsi Ali in your own link, the term "anti-Muslim extremist" is entirely accurate. What, should she get an exemption because she's Somalian?

If speaking up for the rights of Muslim women is extremist activity, then I want to be an extremist. She fights against "honor" killings, arranged marriages, genital cutting, etc.. She rightly recognizes Islam as a threat to women, which it always has been in less developed countries. I've been following her activities for years; you should read up on her.

[Elegiac]

If speaking up for the rights of Muslim women is extremist activity, then I want to be an extremist. She fights against "honor" killings, arranged marriages, genital cutting, etc.. She rightly recognizes Islam as a threat to women, which it always has been in less developed countries. I've been following her activities for years; you should read up on her.

Saying "there is no moderate Islam" and calling for the extermination of an entire religion makes you a hateful extremist. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Mormolyce]

If speaking up for the rights of Muslim women is extremist activity

No, it isn't.

[Rukh]

Religious discussion is not allowed. Closing this here.

Shit, I'm not a mod. Please ban yourselves immediately.

[Masark]

Because the SPLC is a credible organization that should be taken seriously by individuals with any shred of dignity, self-respect, or intelligence.

Oh, wait.

Yes, because a person making death threats in their profile should be listened to.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

They called her an anti-Muslim extremist.



100% justified.

Also 100% true.
100% admirable.
If that is what makes an extremist in the eyes of the SPLC or you and your's, there is nothing to be ashamed of.

Yes, because a person making death threats in their profile should be listened to.

You really are a gem, aren't you? Stalking me only to go "look at huz avutur!"

Because death threats on backwater internet forums are something to be taken seriously.

Because I am making an explicit death threat.

Because I am making a vague death threat.

Because all three of the above are false.

[Elegiac]

Also 100% true.
100% admirable.
If that is what makes an extremist in the eyes of the SPLC or you and your's, there is nothing to be ashamed of.

We're well aware that the deplorables have no shame, thanks sweetheart.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

We're well aware that the deplorables have no shame, thanks sweetheart.

Yes, Deplorables.
Sensibles would be more like it.

We're well aware that progressives have no intelligence, thanks pumpkin.

[Rukh]

Yes, Deplorables.
Sensibles would be more like it.

We're well aware that progressives have no intelligence, thanks pumpkin.

Look at me! I'm a conservative! Deregulate business and weaken government. You know... for "democracy!" The only thing that can stop a bad man with a gun is a white man with a gun! Jesus wants you to donate to the rich! I have some dead smart guy as an icon!

[Grapemask]

Yes, Deplorables.
Sensibles would be more like it.

We're well aware that progressives have no intelligence, thanks pumpkin.

Using progressives as an insult against intelligence has got to be at least the fifth fatal dose of irony you've racked up in this thread alone.

[Mormolyce]

Also 100% true.

So you agree with me. Coolio.

Why don't you go post that on Stormfront where you can get a second for your circlejerk.

[Bodakane]

Here you go. Here's just one example.

You complain about a source then link the NYPost?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[-Nurot]

"Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley". Here is their site: http://www.theconservativeforum.com/
"ACT for America". Here is their site: http://www.actforamerica.org/aboutact
"Oregonians for Immigration Reform" Here is their site: http://www.oregonir.org/

And so on. For every organization like this that I find on the map, you can find an actual hate group, and that's the issue, because the SPLC doesn't distinguish between Nazis and people who just want border security, for example. If Ayaan Hirsi Ali is an "anti-Muslim extremist" (this is the SPLC's write up on her and others: https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/j...lim-extremists ), then what is David Duke? The SPLC deliberately obfuscates the truth with blanket labeling.

Wasn't ACT coordinating anti-Muslim rallies? Just because the give their marches fancy slogans like "March Against Shariah" and "America First", doesn't make their message at these rallies any less clear. Seems like a pretty good example of a hate group.

As for the "Oregonians for Immigration Reform", didn't they accept donations from white nationalist groups? Just saying, they're anti DACA/immigrant and take white supremacist funds...

The "Conservative Forum of Silicon Valley", not sure about it, but with James O' Keefe attached at best it's a joke.

Your list seems like you simply picked groups with non-political names and went to their website to "prove" that they have the best intentions.

If speaking up for the rights of Muslim women is extremist activity, then I want to be an extremist. She fights against "honor" killings, arranged marriages, genital cutting, etc.. She rightly recognizes Islam as a threat to women, which it always has been in less developed countries. I've been following her activities for years; you should read up on her.

Those ideas are not what is being questioned.

When she says things like-

Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate – a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism.... Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder.

Claiming, forced marriages, female mutilation, etc.. are bad, is one thing. Branding the entirety or Islam/Muslims as evil and rallying against the religion as a whole is quite another. You can absolutely do one without the other, believe it or not.

It's kind of like the idiots in America blaming Muslims for 9/11 and/or ISIS. All of ISIS are Muslims, but not all Muslims are ISIS.

[Reinhard von Lohengramm]

Using progressives as an insult against intelligence has got to be at least the fifth fatal dose of irony you've racked up in this thread alone.

I'm sure it is.
Progressives have access to all the knowledge in the world, all the history of the world, but with what they choose to use it for, proves that they have no intelligence, or intuition.

So you agree with me. Coolio.

Why don't you go post that on Stormfront where you can get a second for your circlejerk.

Proving my point, see the response to @Grapemask.
If what Hirsi Ali said is enough for the SPLC (and you) to mark her as an "anti-Muslim extremist", then all that proves is that there is no issue whatsoever, nothing wrong with, nothing to be ashamed of with being branded an "anti-Muslim extremist" by the SPLC (or you).
And that, regardless of whatever brand the dis-credible SPLC chooses to throw at her, does not detract from the truth of her statements, analysis and description of her past religion.

Never actually been there, but keep straw-manning and projecting.
As I said, progressives have no intelligence, and as I added, no intuition either.